Literature DB >> 8771289

Cost analysis of long-term feeding by percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in cancer patients in an Italian health district.

S Sartori1, L Trevisani, D Tassinari, G Gilli, I Nielsen, A Maestri, V Abbasciano.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate prospectively the cost of long-term feeding by percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). Cost analysis was carried out in 34 head and neck cancer patients, followed from the time of PEG placement to the death or the end of the study. Three main items were considered: (a) PEG placement (on an inpatient basis), subdivided into five subitems: the Freka FK-07 gastrostomy kit, materials and anaesthetic drugs used, antibiotics and antisecretory drugs, gastroscope amortization expenses and staff; (b) nutrition, considering the costs of enteral-feeding products, nutrition container and flexible tube connecting the container to the PEG; (c) patient care, dividing the patients into three groups: outpatients, home-care patients and outpatients shifting to home care during the follow-up. All patients had one medical and two nursing visits/month, and, if necessary, immediate additional access to a physician or nurse. The mean daily cost per patient of long-term feeding via PEG was obtained by adding up the mean daily costs per patient of the three items, and was compared with that of feeding via nasogastric tube, calculated in 11 patients using the same criteria. No procedure-related death nor periprocedural major or minor complications were observed. The 60-day mortality was 3/34. Seventeen patients were always seen on an outpatient basis and 8 were followed by our home-care unit: 9 outpatients shifted to home care during the follow-up. The mean duration of PEG use was 180.5 days (range 47-639). Two wound infections, treated with antibiotics, occurred during the follow-up. The mean daily costs of placement, nutrition and patient care were (Italian Iiras) L 2500, 24 510 and 1880 respectively (Deutschemarks: DM 2.08, 20.42 and 1.56), for a total mean daily cost of L 28,890 (DM 24.06), slightly higher than that of feeding via a nasogastric tube (L 27,340; DM 22.78). On the basis of the improved quality of life, as well as from the economic point of view, PEG can be considered the procedure of choice for enteral feeding of cancer patients, provided that a reasonably long survival can be expected.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8771289     DOI: 10.1007/bf01769870

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Support Care Cancer        ISSN: 0941-4355            Impact factor:   3.603


  14 in total

1.  Endoscopic versus operative gastrostomy: final results of a prospective randomized trial.

Authors:  G V Stiegmann; J S Goff; D Silas; N Pearlman; J Sun; L Norton
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1990 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 9.427

Review 2.  Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomies: a prospective evaluation and review of the literature.

Authors:  D F Kirby; R M Craig; T K Tsang; B H Plotnick
Journal:  JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr       Date:  1986 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 4.016

Review 3.  Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

Authors:  J J Mamel
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  1989-07       Impact factor: 10.864

4.  Long-term survival in patients undergoing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and jejunostomy.

Authors:  H C Wolfsen; R A Kozarek; T J Ball; D J Patterson; V A Botoman; J A Ryan
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 10.864

5.  Audit of outcome of long-term enteral nutrition by percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

Authors:  M A Hull; J Rawlings; F E Murray; J Field; A S McIntyre; Y R Mahida; C J Hawkey; S P Allison
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1993-04-03       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Assessment of the percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding tube as part of an integrated approach to enteral feeding.

Authors:  C Wicks; A Gimson; P Vlavianos; M Lombard; M Panos; P Macmathuna; M Tudor; K Andrews; D Westaby
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 23.059

7.  Randomised comparison of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and nasogastric tube feeding in patients with persisting neurological dysphagia.

Authors:  R H Park; M C Allison; J Lang; E Spence; A J Morris; B J Danesh; R I Russell; P R Mills
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1992-05-30

8.  Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Indications, success, complications, and mortality in 314 consecutive patients.

Authors:  D E Larson; D D Burton; K W Schroeder; E P DiMagno
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1987-07       Impact factor: 22.682

9.  Tracheostomy. A new indication for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement.

Authors:  J R Vaughan; J S Scott; D S Edelman; S W Unger
Journal:  Am Surg       Date:  1991-04       Impact factor: 0.688

10.  Is percutaneous better than open gastrostomy? A clinical study in one surgical department.

Authors:  K N Apelgren; J Zambos
Journal:  Am Surg       Date:  1989-09       Impact factor: 0.688

View more
  2 in total

1.  Nutrition in cancer patients: frustrating neglect and permanent challenge.

Authors:  G Delmore
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 3.603

2.  Mortality and complications after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a retrospective multicentre study.

Authors:  K Stenberg; A Eriksson; C Odensten; D Darehed
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2022-07-28       Impact factor: 2.847

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.